The Supreme Court ruled last week that President Trump had exceeded his authority in implementing certain tariffs.

On February 20, 2026, the SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose broad, long-term tariffs, rendering previous 2025 IEEPA-based tariffs (including those on China, Mexico, and Canada) unlawful.

IEEPA stands for International Emergency Economic Powers Act (of 1977).

Throughout his two terms, President Trump implemented some non-IEEPA tariffs such as Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, copper, lumber, automotive parts and other products. Those tariffs were not affected by the ruling.

Immediately following the Supreme Court’s ruling, President Trump implemented a “Section 122” 10 percent “ad valorem” import duty on articles imported into the United States. This duty can remain active for 150 days, after which time, Congress would need to enact support for the duty, or it will no longer be in effect.

American Farm Bureau

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall commented on the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the administration’s use of tariffs.

“America’s farmers understand the president’s efforts to use tariffs to create a more level playing field for U.S. goods, U.S. workers and the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, trade disruptions and declining prices for agricultural goods created additional hardships for farmers who came into 2025 already dealing with crippling inflation and declining farm prices. We appreciate the President responding to trade and market disruptions by delivering important financial assistance. Open and fair markets are critical to help rebuild the farm economy.

“In light of the Supreme Court ruling, we urge the administration to work swiftly to find other ways to resolve trade disputes and finalize recently announced trade frameworks. With supply costs already at or near record highs, we strongly encourage the president to avoid using any other available authorities to impose tariffs on agricultural inputs that would further increase costs. America’s farmers and ranchers need stability to ensure families across America can put food on their tables.”

North Dakota Farmers Union

North Dakota Farmers Union President Matt Perdue welcomed the Supreme Court decision.

“The Supreme Court’s decision affirms that Congress, not the executive branch, has the authority to impose tariffs. Over the past year, trade disputes with key partners have created major headwinds for family farmers and ranchers. Today’s decision should restore some market stability and reduce input cost pressures.

“We urge the Administration and Congress to work together on trade policies that prioritize market access and lower input costs. As they work to stabilize those relationships, we also need to take care of business here at home. We will continue to work with Congress to complete the farm bill, grow domestic market opportunities and strengthen competition in the markets we buy from and sell to.”

Coalition for a Prosperous America

Charles Benoit, trade counsel for the Coalition for a Prosperous America, doesn’t believe the IEEPA tariffs were terribly helpful to most agriculture industries, anyway. He believes Section 232 tariffs would be far more effective in protecting the U.S. cattle industry.

CPA is the only national non-profit organization representing exclusively domestic producers across many sectors and industries of the U.S. economy. The organization brings together manufacturers, workers, farmers, and ranchers and it values quality employment, national security, and domestic self- sufficiency over cheap consumption.

Benoit said as a trade lawyer, he has observed that “rules-based trade” will guarantee offshoring.

He complimented President Trump’s instincts about how to manage trade. Benoit explained that previous presidents would complain that “other countries are cheating at the rules.” But he said that because we are a sovereign country, we should be controlling access to our own market.

“Trump has the correct view – if the rules aren’t working for you and you are spending decade after decade accusing everyone of cheating, maybe revisit the rules, maybe the system is actually rigged against us,” said Benoit, pointing out he has “really appreciated” President Trump’s fresh viewpoint on managing trade.

Tariffs can serve one of three purposes, said Benoit:

Revenue – ten percent universal IEEPA tariffs fit in this category – they were funding the tax cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill

 Protection – Section 232 tariffs are used to protect an industry

Leverage – to encourage a nation to change a policy the U.S. doesn’t agree with

Regarding the SCOTUS ruling, Benoit said, it is pretty clear that tariff responsibilities do lie with Congress, according to the U.S. Constitution. However, Congress has delegated a lot of their functions, including tariff power to the President through a variety of laws such as IEEPA.

IEEPA had not been previously used for tariffs except one time in the 1970s, he said. President Trump utilizing that act for tariffs was “novel,” he said.

The IEEPA tariffs were “big money makers,” bringing in well over $200 billion per year, and were expected to lower the federal deficit by close to $3 trillion over 10 years, said Benoit, but didn’t do much if anything to protect the U.S. cattle industry or give U.S. producers confidence to rebuild the herd.

“I think that, for ranchers, none of this was providing any protection. 10 percent on Brazilian beef – even if that goes to 50 percent, the imports don’t stop,” he said.

“I just don’t think any of the IEEPA tariffs were providing protections for ranchers to their home market,” he said. “If the ranchers ask ‘what does this (SCOTUS ruling) mean for me?’ I don’t think it means much, other than it might encourage the administration to be more focused Section 232 tariffs especially for agriculture.”

“One of the things that made IEEPA kind of wild, is the president could kind of drop these things out of the sky,” he said. The big universal IEEPA action was 10 percent worldwide (except Canada and Mexico which were mostly exempted due to USMCA). Some countries, depending on the size of the trade deficit, were subject to higher tariffs.

Benoit says because the IEEPA tariffs were mostly low-level 10 percent to 30 percent ad valorem tariffs, they were not terribly effective in stopping imports. Ad valorem tariffs are implemented as a percent of the value of the product coming in, but he said there is really no way of confirming that value. “The law says it’s supposed to apply to the importer’s transaction price. But that is a private contractual relationship. The parties on both sides are usually related. Every overseas vendor – they can’t get arrested for misconduct – they will write an invoice for whatever the importer wants. It’s not like there is a price sticker on the product like we see when we buy it in a store,” he said. The price agreed upon by the importer or exporter (sometimes this is the same entity) is not public information, he said, making those tariffs ineffective for protecting an industry.

“Section 232 are the national security tariffs. That’s my favorite, that’s the one I think the President should be most focused on. That’s where you get our steel tariffs, aluminum tariffs, copper tariffs, lumber tariffs. All of these sector and supply chain approaches. I really lament that we haven’t had a section 232 for agriculture, that’s a real miss for this administration. Secretary Rollins should be working with the department of commerce on agriculture 232 actions,” he said.

Section 301 tariffs were used “against” China. They are focused on “unfair trading practices.” Those tariffs are more commonly used “one country at a time,” he said.

Section 232 tariffs

As for Section 232 tariffs, they can be implemented as the result of a multi-agency  investigation to determine if national security is being threatened.

Benoit said if an investigation determines beef is needed for national security, the President would then have the authority to adjust imports by using quotas, tariffs, or a combination of the two to mitigate the national security threat.

Although beef imports are subject to a quota, Canada and Mexico are exempt from that, and quotas for Australian beef are high and over quota tariffs aren’t high enough to slow imports down, he said.

Benoit urges Secretary Rollins and Commerce to work together to use Section 232 tariffs for the future, if not now  – “it can at least set quota levels for 2028, 2029 and so on – to give certainty to rebuild the herd.”

Under section 232, the President could implement a worldwide quota on beef, and when that quota is met, tariffs could be implemented at any rate deemed appropriate to hinder additional imports. Those tariffs could be implemented at a rate of $2 or $5 per pound or whatever the President believed to be appropriate. Tariffs based on volume rather than value are easier to implement fairly.

Protection vs exporting

He explained that many international food companies have convinced Congress that exports will improve domestic production prices. “This is how giant processors play DC: They tell law makers, the problem is ‘unfair trade’ and ‘if you can just get a deal to get more market access in this other country, that will be a huge with for farmers and ranchers because we’ll export more and we’ll grow,’” he said.

Benoit pointed out that the U.S. population has grown by about one-third since NAFTA was implemented, and many U.S. agricultural industries are producing less than they were when NAFTA was implemented.  

“Our import reliance is surging,” he said. “We are now a net importer of food.” He talked about strawberries, citrus, blueberries and many other industries losing their ability to be profitable in the face of competing imports.

“(Congress) has been championing this idea for decades ‘winning market access abroad will save us,’ but in reality, we just lose our home market.” The U.S. import reliance for blueberries is at an all-time high, for example, he said.

The sugar industry, on the other hand, has grown in recent decades, thanks to a trade strategy encouraging U.S. sugar production.

“It’s completely insane when you hear a politician talk about winning more exports – we’re going to send more rice to Japan? Are you kidding me? How about defending our home market?”

“Open borders destroy any pricing power you might have,” he said. “As you see in lamb.”

“All of your congressman and senators that are talking about more exports, it’s actually insane asylum level crazy,” he said.

One last thing about why rules-based trade is so insane, “Here, in the U.S. especially, we believe in free market competition. The rest of the world does not. This is a uniquely American idea. The rest of the world is far more into (government-backed ) ‘national champions.’ That does give them a leg up in the rules-based trade. The American attitude is: we’re just going to have these rules for the market and then, let it rip and may the best man win. And that’s good, that’s a big part of American exceptionalism. To be clear, I’m conservative, I believe in the benefits of free market capitalism. But I believe it’s got to be within a home market. You cannot do it across borders. Because they don’t have anti-trust in Brazil. They don’t have our labor, our environmental laws. So when we remove tariffs and take unlimited imports for any good, not only are we making our labor and environmental rules a hindrance, but you’re benefitting the countries that are willing to roll up their sleeves and pick a winner,” he said, referencing countries making financial investments in their domestic industries.

The U.S. government now owns a stake in Intel, and U.S. Steel, he said. “If you don’t like this, I get it, but it was the inevitable result of globalization. Because that’s how other countries do it. So, America is becoming like other countries, we’re just going to have a handful of ‘national champions,’ consumers will be poorly served and small independent producers – forget about it, you’re cooked,” he said.

“There’s never going to be such a thing as a level playing field,” said Benoit.

“There is no world where it makes sense to put American ranchers into unlimited price competition with ranchers in other countries. You’re never going to synchronize all of the labor laws, environmental laws, you can’t have a level playing field So we just need to approach trade on a product by product, sector by sector basis, first and foremost. Not country by country…rules-based trade says – ‘we’re going to conjure up these fake rules, and let the chips fall where they may, and if we lose our industry, too bad, so sad, we were out competed.’ That’s rules-based trade. Completely insane,” he said.

“We don’t want to lose the last rancher – those are the kinds of decisions you need to make and manage the access (to the U.S. market),” he said.

Charles Benoit with the Coalition for a Prosperous America complimented President Trump’s instincts about how to manage trade. Benoit explained that previous presidents would complain that “other countries are cheating at the rules.” But he said that because we are a sovereign country, we should be controlling access to our own market.image-87